New alphabet for english.

The place to discuss constructed writing systems (con-scripts)

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby dtp883 » Thu 18 Jun 2009 2:10 am

locuroso wrote:There is also no need of double conconants such as: dd, tt, ll, rr, ss and so on. With the exception of g: for instance English can be pronounced with or without the 'g' sound. (either a nasal 'e' sound followed by an 'n', or the nasal 'e' sound followed by an 'ng') So with the new spelling English can be spelled either: Ínglix or Íngglix, depending on how you pronounce the word.


First off, I don't think an orthography that can change depending on how someone pronounces a word is a bad idea. There would be too much deviation in spelling after a while, I personally think that it would be too confusing. Some double letters would be important for example moose and mousse would look and sound the same. You also loose the distinction between in and inn and to and too (and two).

ai- always pronounced like 'i' in spine.
ei- always pronounced like 'i' in spike or like


I'm pretty sure there isn't any variety in the way those i's are pronounced both being /aɪ/.

Two more questions, first what about the digraph er by some it is pronounced /ɚ/ and by others /ə/. In your alphabet raitѳ raitɛ reitѳ reitɛ all sound like writer. (And the way I pronounce words, rider also.) Also what is your solution for wh being pronounced as by most as /w/ but by some as /ʍ/?

Also đeɛ (đeѳ) would be how you write there, their, and they're. Problems could arise in statements such as their dogs and they're dogs looking the same. You also loose the contraction of the last one đé ár changing into đeɛ. (And I believe in non-rhotic it would be đé á into đeѳ).

I apologize if any of my points are invalid my mind is foggy at the moment. One point I couldn't figure out how to explain is how non-rhotic accents extend vowels in words such as hard and car and if this could be a problem since there is no way to show this extension.
Native: English (NW American)
Advanced: Spanish
Intermediate: French
Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian)
Some day: German
User avatar
dtp883
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 10:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Area

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Talib » Thu 18 Jun 2009 4:17 am

linguoboy wrote:
Sean of the Dead wrote:Maybe you should learn IPA, since for me "down" and "out" have the same vowel.

Because you don't have Canadian raising in your speech, you poor deprived soul.

This is Major Problem #2 with the orthography, IMHO: It's phonetic in some areas where it should be phonemic. The only time these diphthongs contrast is before an alveolar tap from /d/ or /t/. That is, some speakers distinguish rider from writer not by the medial consonant but from the quality of the stressed vowels alone.
I thought Canadian raising was allophonic though. Isn't it? So for me "down" and "out" do have the same phoneme, but I can tell the difference now that I know something about linguistics.
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby linguoboy » Thu 18 Jun 2009 4:24 am

Talib wrote:I thought Canadian raising was allophonic though. Isn't it? So for me "down" and "out" do have the same phoneme, but I can tell the difference now that I know something about linguistics.

Yes, that was exactly my point. There's no reason to write reitɛ and raidɛ (or speik and spain, etc.) when *raitɛ and *reidɛ (bzw. *spaik and *spein) don't exist in your dialect.
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Sobekhotep » Thu 18 Jun 2009 9:58 pm

dtp883 wrote:
ai- always pronounced like 'i' in spine.
ei- always pronounced like 'i' in spike or like


I'm pretty sure there isn't any variety in the way those i's are pronounced both being /aɪ/.

Not for me. I use [aɪ] in "spine" but [əɪ] in "spike" & "like".
ለሐዘበ ፡ ዘየደአ
User avatar
Sobekhotep
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 4:53 am
Location: America's Dairyland

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby linguoboy » Thu 18 Jun 2009 10:38 pm

Sobekhotep wrote:Not for me. I use [aɪ] in "spine" but [əɪ] in "spike" & "like".

Which do you have in spider?
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby locuroso » Fri 19 Jun 2009 12:07 am

For the most part differentiating bewteen their and they're would still remain the same any contractions would keep the use of the apostraphe. As the 'hw' sound, which is non existant in my speech would be written exactly as it is pronounced, as with all other sounds. Yes you do lose the distinction between to, too, and two but that is only when written an alphabet can't account for natural abiguity. It's just sheer coincidence that you lose that distinction. On the other hand it makes differentiating bewteen desert and dessert much easier: Dezɛrt and Dízert, this is also why I decided that for this alphabet to work capitalizing all nouns would help to differention between the verb 'resort' and the noun 'resort': rízort and Rízort. It would even help differentiate between the 'wind' and 'to wind something up': Wind and waind. So inevitably yes some distinctions would be lost but it would get rid of annoying diphthongs like ph and th (which is sometimes pronounced like a 't' in some words). Whenever something new comes along some old things get lost, this is true, however simplifying some old problems can help to make up for it.
Native language: English Canadian
Intermediate: Spanish
Working Knoledge: French
locuroso
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu 30 Apr 2009 10:56 am

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby locuroso » Fri 19 Jun 2009 12:14 am

Yes, that was exactly my point. There's no reason to write reitɛ and raidɛ (or speik and spain, etc.) when *raitɛ and *reidɛ (bzw. *spaik and *spein) don't exist in your dialect.


I notice that you write raitɛ and reidɛ without the 'r', indicating that the 'ɛ' sound doesn't exist without the 'r'. With me I use the sound in other places as well not just with 'r', prolly due to my dialect, when I get going in a good conversation with someone from home the 'ɛ' sound can be heard before 'n', 'l', or even 's', and we have a clear distinction between 'ѳ' and 'ɛ'.
Native language: English Canadian
Intermediate: Spanish
Working Knoledge: French
locuroso
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu 30 Apr 2009 10:56 am

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby sokuban » Fri 19 Jun 2009 12:23 am

I don't want to sound rude, but it isn't "diphthongs", it is "digraphs".
User avatar
sokuban
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri 17 Apr 2009 4:49 pm

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Talib » Fri 19 Jun 2009 1:21 am

locuroso wrote:I notice that you write raitɛ and reidɛ without the 'r', indicating that the 'ɛ' sound doesn't exist without the 'r'. With me I use the sound in other places as well not just with 'r', prolly due to my dialect, when I get going in a good conversation with someone from home the 'ɛ' sound can be heard before 'n', 'l', or even 's', and we have a clear distinction between 'ѳ' and 'ɛ'.
If you're going to use obscure glyphs like that, you might as well just use IPA letters.

But I really can't see why English speakers would adopt letters which are outside of the standard Latin alphabet.
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby dtp883 » Fri 19 Jun 2009 3:09 am

locuroso wrote:On the other hand it makes differentiating bewteen desert and dessert much easier: Dezɛrt and Dízert.


Quick question, why didn't you use ɛ in the second words?

I must disagree. First off there are three types of "desert"; desert as in barren land, desert (verb), and dessert. The verb and dessert are homophones. While gaining distinction between, a barren land desert, and the verb desert, you lose the distinction between the dessert and the verb desert. Although your capitalization rules should alleviate this.

Other than that I think you did a good job, but you really really should use all easily type-able regularly used Latin alphabet characters instead of obscure ones. There are a bunch of accents áàäâãåéèëêíì ï îóòöôõúùüûýÿ being just a few. And while it may be unconventional if you want to eliminate all digraphs you may consider ñ for ng. I don't know just a suggestion.

Yeah I know there are really 2 desert nouns but one of them is used so rarely i restricted it to just barren land in my post.
Native: English (NW American)
Advanced: Spanish
Intermediate: French
Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian)
Some day: German
User avatar
dtp883
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 10:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Area

PreviousNext

Return to Constructed writing systems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest